One way to measure the progress of a large and complex construction program like the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Program is to count how many foundations have been completed. This is a revealing metric, since foundation construction is currently the top risk on the program due to surprises when digging holes along the right of way. It's also a metric that is readily measurable and reported monthly.
In round numbers, the electrification project encompasses ~2500 poles and ~3100 concrete foundations. The number of foundations is greater than the number of poles because there are foundations for guy wires and sometimes multiple foundations for portal poles.
The progress chart below will be updated monthly.
In round numbers, the electrification project encompasses ~2500 poles and ~3100 concrete foundations. The number of foundations is greater than the number of poles because there are foundations for guy wires and sometimes multiple foundations for portal poles.
The progress chart below will be updated monthly.
At the December 2018 meeting of the Caltrain board of directors, the program manager stated (starting at 01:03:00 in video) that he needed to maintain a pace of 156 pole foundations per month (six per night) to meet the schedule milestone of "electrification substantial completion," which was then set for June 2021. You can see how things went since then.
Posts
What's the burn rate on OCS, and how does that match the latest reported cost?
ReplyDeleteBurn rate on the entire project is lower than planned. See PDF page 12. Where they are right now spend-wise is where they were planned to be 16 months ago, so one way of squinting at the program status is that they are 16 months behind... and even more behind if they are over-spending on the tasks they are already doing.
DeleteThe latest monthly claims they're on schedule, but the OCS completion milestone has slipped by 3 months in the last 3 months (December 2018 report: 6/23/21, March 2019 report: 9/24/21)
I'm thinking the likelihood of any electrified service in 2021 is roughly zero, 2022 getting iffy.
What would be the way to prevent this problem - handing the project over to the contractor with less specific plans? eg: "Put a foundation somewhere in this 2m x 8m rectangle" or simpler still, just specify pole spacing requirements and let the contractor figure it out? One can imagine a construction team going out to actually dig a foundation without even knowing exactly where it will go ahead of time, or having an 'ideal spot' but being empowered to relocate on the fly within certain parameters if some unexpected utility turns out to be in the way. Not being in the construction industry I can't say for sure, but I bet this sort of thing was common for this kind of work "back in the day".
ReplyDeleteThe analogy I can relate to when I built a fence in my backyard, I knew I was shooting for 7'6" on-center post spacing but if I ran into a root while digging I would make it a little shorter or a little wider, up to 8'. I also didn't measure very exactly, because it's a fence, and who cares? I am not an expert, so maybe I am completely wrong, but building foundations to support poles for RR electrification seems like it has the potential to be pretty similar to this.
The rate is low because the "team" doing "Segment 3" hasn't been mobilized or hasn't started yet.
ReplyDeleteBetter question is "why haven't they started yet".
Pretty sure the answer is in the monthly... Segment 3 isn't scheduled to start for another few months.
DeleteSegment 3 is probably the longest, but also seems to have the shortest time allocated to it. The graph above might be more accurate if broken down by segments, then for each segment, plot the completion/total as well as months.
DeleteEven that assumes linear progress for each segment which might not be the case once teams get up to speed and complete a 100+ poles.
The graph makes no assumptions other than the one stated: linear extrapolation from the officially reported foundation productivity of the last three months.
DeleteRealistically, foundation production should follow a sigmoid profile, starting slowly with potholing, accelerating to a maximum rate, and then tapering off as the work wraps up and the hardest cases are dealt with. One would thus expect the extrapolated line to rapidly trend upwards, with the extrapolated completion date pulling well to the left of October 2021.
Keep watching to see whether it does that, and when.
It's likely that by now (with accumulated delays since December) the required production rate will have to hit 200 foundations/month in order to finish on time. That's FOUR times the current average.
The LA Times has published a damning long article on the HSR project:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-high-speed-rail-consultants-20190426-story.html
How California’s troubled high-speed rail project was ‘captured’ by costly consultants
( Perhaps a sub title of "how not to build a project" should be added
For once an objective article from Vartabedian.
DeleteIt seems like the contractors all knew to come in with low bids to ensure snagging a package. They all knew they could abuse the authority and find opportunities to sweeten the pot.
DeleteA follow-on article that summarizes the realities that CAHSR is telling the Legislature:
Delete-- $20.4 billion complete cost of Bakersfield to Merced ($15 billion needed from now on).
-- $63 million per year subsidy required to operate the Central Valley segment
-- $4 billion from Feds is not coming
-- getting rid of consultants will not be cheap. Example: CAHSR says it needs 10 more IT folks.
-- a separate prediction that the Bay Area will never connect to the system.
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-project-update-20190501-story.html
IIRC, the entire reason for the consultant-capture was that certain members of the Authority Board (I want to say they were Republicans or centrist Democrats) wanted to avoid having to fund pensions for Authority employees. The easiest way to avoid that was by using consultants instead of staffing up the agency properly.
DeleteThe required rate is now 200/month. Please adjust your graph.
ReplyDeletePlease see above comment, 26 April 17:56. The graph shows an extrapolation of actual installation rates.
DeleteIs LA Times disseminating false information again?
ReplyDelete"$63 million per year subsidy required to operate the Central Valley segment"
The 63 million is based on the farebox-recovery ratio which includes high-speed rail, the Altamont Corridor Express and the San Joaquins services. Ie this is the subsidy for 3 systems.
83 million without HSR.
"$4 billion from Feds is not coming".
CAHSR will not return the 2.5B in fed money.
Also, it is against federal law to hold back the 1 billion...this will be in the courts for a long time. Dems may be in power before this is decided.
"$20.4 billion complete cost of Bakersfield to Merced ($15 billion needed from now on)."
Worst case scenario is recouping FY10 and C&T comes in on the low end. Which leaves 1 billion short.
ARRA $2.49
FY10 $0.93
Prop 1A Planning $0.68
Prop 1A $2.61
Future Prop 1A $4.17
Proposition 1A Bookends $1.10
Cap-and-Trade Received December 2018 $2.42
Subtotal $14.45
Future Cap-and-Trade* $6.00 – 9.00
Total $20.45 – 23.45
oops, wrong spot. This was a reply to Reedman's post
DeleteUpdate from April 2019 progress report: continued mediocre production rate. Totals are now provided for all segments, so at the current production rate foundations will be completed in March 2023, or 17 months behind schedule. Accounting for some acceleration as they improve their process, the project is probably about a year behind.
ReplyDelete3131 (required) - 791 (completed to date) = 2340 (remaining).
ReplyDelete2340 (remaining) / (45/month) = 52 months remaining; or 4 years 4 months _at current rate_. From April, that's August 2023. Am I missing something?
45 per month is 29% of the rate needed, from Dec 2018, to hit schedule . The monthly reports on OCS progress must be omitting rows where nothing has been completed -- that explains why the "required" total jumps from 1,225 in January, to 3,313 in April. The Feb report has an addition error; the 392 foundations in the newly-added rows for Segment 4 were not added to the total.
Are they really saying that in February, they still didn't know how many masts (poles) were needed in Segment 4?
Clem, I think a year behind is overly optimistic. Foundations completed per month is going down, as construction starts in new areas.
I extrapolate based on the average rate for the last 3 months, as stated in the plot legend. I anticipate that production rate will increase, and the cumulative curve should ultimately assume an S-shape (sigmoid). The plot will reveal this, as the extrapolated line should pull to the left and eventually cross the goal to the left of the OCS completion milestone, currently 9/24/2021. This schedule milestone has slipped by 3 months in the last 4 months.
DeleteThe "required" totals in the latest monthly report now include the segments that have not yet begun foundation installation. I think 3131 now represents the overall total for the project. I had previously estimated 3700, a bit too high.
The CBOSS fiber optic cable (poorly located and poorly documented) is getting in the way of hundreds of these foundations, which is one way CBOSS is the gift that keeps on giving.
California High Speed Rail appears to be DEAD!
ReplyDeleteThe LA Times has just published:
On California’s high-speed rail project, combatant Kings County is ready to settle
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-settlement-20190601-story.html
Reading the story, they are buying diesels to run in the Central Valley, and thus, whether admitting it or not, the Authority is giving up on HSR.
Dream on!
DeleteIt sounds like Kings County was going to lose the case and wants to put a positive spin on it.
DeleteMorris, learn to read for comprehension. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Board is buying diesels, not the CHSRA. Even Ralph Vartabedian notes the inconsistency between that; and CHSRA policy and Gov. Newsom's recent statements.
DeleteThe article also says the state will not settle with Kings County unless the county also drops out of the Prop 1A lawsuit; and the county has a verbal agreement to do that.
I agree with Brown. Having looked at the recent Board meeting and also the Assembly Transportation oversight hearing, there is going to be a major effort to take money from the Central Valley and divert it to Southern California.
ReplyDeleteWho in the world can believe that with a $60 billion short fall to build out Phase I, that this project has not miserably failed.
The LA Times article points out that what is now on the horizon is nothing but a slow train and why should the State pour in billions more into the Central Valley and get so little in return. It makes no sense.
The new agenda will be a war by regional interests to get as much of available funding diverted away from the Central Valley and spent where it will do much more good.
Verboon threw in the towel at least as far back as February:
ReplyDelete"Verboon announced to his Kings Council of Governments colleagues that the county was close to settling their differences with the California High Speed Rail Authority"
Now he is doing everything to get a piece of the pie:
"if the philosophy was to confront and delay the project the new philosophy might be just the opposite – insure that “something happens on this corridor” that will benefit Kings County says Verboon."
http://sierra2thesea.net/central-valley/hs-rail-kings-county-near-legal-settlement
"..that this project has not miserably failed."
I don't think it has failed as much as people have had unrealistic expectations. The business plans have all tapered down the expectations but the media keeps construing it into something it possibly could never be. The French took 50+ years to implement there system. Meanwhile SNCF is doing remarkably well outside of a few rural lines: https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/high-speed/sncf-reports-strong-high-speed-growth/
And the new Siemen train sets he is mentioning, only 2 are for runs south of Merced, runs 8 and 9, which is set for at least 5 years before the valley is HSR ready.
Apparently Verboon never bothered to read the May 1, 2019 CAHSR report before the LA Times interview.
CAHSR spent $11 million (sofa-cushion change to them) to pay King County to pull out of the Tos lawsuit. They likely consider it money well-spent to cut down the background noise and continue spending billions. The bigger question (to me) is how the subsidies for operation are going to play out.
ReplyDeleteyes, that's one i've been trying to figure out.
DeleteACE-SJ combined is currently subsidized at 84 million. An ACE-SJ-HSR is subsidized at 60 million according to May 1 HSR document. It assumes higher CV ridership and lower maintenance for the electric leg. Is authority trying to replace a non-subsidized HSR system in Prop1 with a lower subsidized combined system?
Also, proof Verboon is a lose cannon trying to circumvent the authority. He is but quoting Jim Gonzale's plan from February:
http://www.stancog.org/pdf/committees/sjjpa/2019/sjjpa-agenda-03222019.pdf
It's important to note that Caltrain it placing at least 15% too many poles in the ground, purely because Caltrain's self-serving rent-seeking know-nothing consultants pulled electrification "standards" out of their own rear ends, with absolutely zero attention to global norms or to costs.
ReplyDeleteMy go-to comparison is the German DBAG "Re200" catenary design. Not only are between-pole spans longer at every curve radius than the orgy of steel and concrete that is so profiting the consultants and contractor mafiosi who completely control Caltrain, but it's designed to be good for 200kmh out of the box. And multiple vendors can and do build to this design (same goes for other actual standards in actual use by actual know-something rail infrastructure outfits.)
Compare some samples numbers:
Straight track pole spacing: Re200 80m vs Caltrain for-profit made-up bullshit "standard" 70.1m (230 In-God-We-Trust All-American feet)
Re200 spacing at 1200m radius 71.6m vs Caltrain 57m
Re200 at 800m radius 62.5m vs Caltrain 46.6
Re200 at 500m radius 52.4m vs Caltrain 36.6
Re200 at 300m radius 42.5m vs Caltrain 27.4m
etc etc
Corridor-long this all adds up to around 150 completely unnecessary holes and poles. Meaning cost. Meaning time. Meaning more sweet sweet dollars.
But, you know, Caltrian needs MORE MONEY and schedule slips on a "complex project" like this are "only to be expected."
Tough tough stuff, this holes and poles in feet and inches business.
The slightly tighter pole spacing is nothing compared to the heavy use of double track cantilevers and the ridiculous design safety factors, causing each foundation to be easily 300% larger than an equivalent European foundation. Compare to photo of recently constructed heavy-duty 25kV OCS on the French LGV Est, rated for 200 mph. Notice how they just cast a 20 cm pole straight into a 50 cm concrete foundation!
DeleteHere we would say goodness, no, if a train derails that foundation design will slice the vehicle shells right open and you absolutely need a bolted interface to the foundation to function as a structural fuse. What that concept doesn't seem to account for is that a massive foundation (90 cm diameter and several meters deep), even after being sheared of its pole, will act as an immovable obstacle and tear apart the sturdiest of vehicle shells. Especially lightweight aluminum vehicle shells, if you know what I mean...
Sweet sweet dollars indeed.
Breaking News: Balfour Beatty will NOT be invited to bid for the Gilroy electrification.
DeleteOne struggles to imagine how or why electrification would ever be extended past Blossom Hill, now that Pacheco HSR has been put on ice for the foreseeable future.
DeleteJust published on the HSR website is a 22 page powerpoint presentation for the upcoming June 18th HSR Board meeting
ReplyDeleteLink:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2019/brdmtg_061819_Item4_Update_on_SJ_Diridon_Integrated_Station_Concept_and_Upcoming_Northern_Ca_Program_Milestones.pdf
Slide 15 states that an elevated station over Stover St. allows a south approach in the existing right of way, but slide 20 states that the existing right of way can only be used if the station is at grade. Which is it? Is there a rational explanation for this discrepancy, or is it incompetence as usual for the HSR consultants?
DeleteInteresting meeting today. Track and Systems procurement was suspended and Camacho once again made a big push for looking at moving money to LA-Anaheim.
DeleteI don't know if spending the electrification money on the LA-Anaheim section would be such a bad idea. It would allow time for Merced (or Modesto...I know, wishful thinking) and Bakersfield to be built out so that the tracks and electric work could all be done at once.
DeleteOmneos are next: https://www.progressiverailroading.com/mechanical/news/Bombardier-to-move-BART-rail-car-assembly-to-California--57827
ReplyDeleteBreaking News: http://www.scscourt.org/documents/CGJ%20VTA%20Final%20Report%20-%2006.18.19.pdf
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/dead-slug-blamed-for-power-failure-on-japanese-railway-system. Does CAHSR need a mascot?
ReplyDeleteThe slug was only trying to slow down the trains so it could cross the tracks.
DeleteBreaking News: BB have started installing pole foundations EAST of MT-1 between Diridon and Santa Clara.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens next will be beyond fascinating...
The owner of the land would be within their rights to place foundations as they see fit, if necessary reaching over non-electrified tracks of the tenant.
DeleteAnd it would especially not be a problem if they have reached an agreement with their tenant to do so. Why people think that these kinds of things happen without full buy-in from all affected parties is fascinating to me.
Deletehttps://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-yard-sparks-outcry/article_fb0e272a-8d86-11e9-8f0e-3f15c1aa6a7d.html
DeleteFor May 2019 we have a small uptick to 73 foundations completed. At the June 6th board meeting, the deputy program manager stated that as of that day there were 907 foundations completed (May report says 864, so they had to have completed another 43 foundations from June 1st to June 6th). She reported a nightly production rate of 9 to 15 over the previous two weeks or 12 working days, and estimated that going forward the average rate would be closer to 10 per night or 60 per week / 240 per month. So for the June 2019 report, which will be published at the end of July, we should expect something well north of 200. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteFina-inally. Looks like they got it all in there, but still feel the need for an additional Pacheco route as well. Apparently they still don't feel prop 1a is attainable via Altamont. See page 297 of doc
ReplyDeleteUniversal Corridor Improvements:
1- Tracy alignment improvements
2- Altamont Pass Tunnel
3- Livermore alignment improvements
4- Pleasanton alignment improvements
5- Niles Canyon Tunnel/Fremont Improvements
6- Alviso Flats improvements
7- Dumbarton Bridge
8- Jack London Square improvements
9- Second Transbay Tube
Also, see page 299. Maybe it's a morphism in process. At least they have both sets of plans out there before they started construction beyond Madera; finally dumping the cart before the horses strategy.
DeleteThe 2018 CAHSR business plan has Fresno to LA at 120 min.
DeleteValley Link's "Universal Corridor" concept has Peninsula to Merced 80 min.
For Fresno to Merced, I'm guessing, 15 mins.
So LA-Peninsula would be 3hr:35min. Prop 1a has 3:10 for LA to SJ
err-->Prop 1a has 2:10 for LA to SJ. No way Altamont would work.
DeleteNo way Pacheco would work either:
DeleteFantasy: https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/legislative_affairs/Review_of_Capital_Costs_Est_2018_Assoc_with_Section_SF_Baker_Valley_To_Valley_Concept.pdf (Table 5-4 on page 24)
Reality: https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/legislative_affairs/Review_of_Capital_Costs_Est_2018_Assoc_with_Section_SF_Baker_Valley_To_Valley_Concept.pdf (Table 5-31 on page 64)
@les Prop 1a has 2:10 (not 3:10) for LA to SJ.
DeleteHSRA releases SF-SJ and SJ-Merced preferred alternatives
ReplyDeleteAlt. A for SF-SJ includes no (new) passing tracks, and so is only compatible with the _least_ ambitious "baseline" service scenario in Caltrain's new Business Plan, falling well short of actual Caltrain ridership demand and leaving many Peninsula stations with (continued) piss-poor infrequent service.
Here's the key quote: "With [Alt. A], HSR stations would be at the existing 4th & King and Millbrae stations [...] until the Downtown Extension provides HSR access to SF's Salesforce Transit Center. The East Brisbane [light maintenance facility] would be on about 100 acres of largely vacant land east of the Caltrain line. Additionally, the HSRA, working closely with Caltrain, developed a range of service plans for blended service _without_ passing tracks. This is consistent with the analysis underlying the _baseline_ growth scenario in the Caltrain Business Plan."
The Friends of Caltrain "Green Caltrain" blog has a nice write-up along with embedded videos and upcoming community meetings:
ReplyDeleteHSRA to reveal [preferred alternatives] from San Francisco to Merced
While no passing tracks is a disappointment (let Caltrain pay for that!), it was good to see a rejection of the insanely gold-plated seeming viaducts through San Jose. They've gone with full at-grade "blended" along Caltrain's existing route both north and south of Diridon. They indicate that negotiations with UP regarding SJ-Gilroy are going well ... and that their preferred alternative is blended with Caltrain at no more than 110 mph all the way to Gilroy. So no separate new high speed line until south of Gilroy.
Caltrain/HSRA are saying they are only required to grade-separate crossings that have 4 or more tracks or when speeds exceed 110 mph. Avoiding building passing tracks across any crossings will avoid having to pay for any mandatory grade separations.
Given that none of these "alternatives" contemplate speeds in excess of 125 MPH between Transbay and Gilroy, it is unclear why anyone would consider entertaining "The Authority" as the "Lead Agency" for this project.
ReplyDelete(b) "Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this subdivision precludes other local, regional, or state agencies from exercising powers provided by law with regard to planning or operating, or both, passenger rail service."
https://california.public.law/codes/ca_pub_util_code_section_185032
It is also unclear why anyone in their right mind would consider a Gilroy-Merced section as a "building block" of the LA-San Francisco high-speed line.
I think it's actually only 110mph.
DeleteI think the difference between 125 and 125+ (aside from geometry and track maintenance) is probably a breaking of track sharing compatibility with Caltrain either due to signal system or some FRA regulation. Speeds are probably still close enough to make that work.
DeleteDifference between 110 mph and 125 mph is grade separation requirement. I'd guess that HSR is ok with 15mph slowdown if they can save a few billion on grade separations, or are happy waiting for VTA, Caltrain and local cities to chip in towards the cost of them down the road.
Presumably, once sections are grade separated, or if there's a 10-15 miles segment that's separated, one could envision 125mph operation by HSR.
FYI - Virgin Trains (formerly Brightline) in Florida plans to hit 125 mph on the new stretch of track between Coco Beach and Orlando.
Deletehttps://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-virgin-train-orange-track-20190617-hqzsnx3j6jhspf6z3svu5foxlu-story.html
Yes, it should save 5-10 mins on a trip to the airport. It's too bad they don't do some additional grade separations so they can run longer at 125.
DeleteFrom the article on Virgin Trains: "The 39 miles of Virgin’s twin-track corridor from Cocoa to Orlando International Airport will be entirely new, have no crossings" - there ya go... no grade crossings --> 125mph.
DeleteBut as with all things HSR in California, it all comes down to lack of funding to build a grade separated corridor.
I'm talking the other 1-200 miles of track. Keep in mind Florida suffers the worst casualty rate by trains of any state. Their current Brightline system alone is good for at least 1 a month.
DeleteDo you have sources to city that Florida is worst? Both Virgin and Caltrain average around 1 a month for roughly same track length.
DeleteIt was a Trains Magazine article from months back but I can't find it. However I did find an FRA site that has the below (note: California has about twice the track mileage as Florida and over the last 10 years Florida has seen increases at an alarming rate)
DeleteState deaths period
FL 128 1-2019 to 5-2019
CA 224
https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/on_the_fly_download.aspx
Also, Caltrains is running just under 3 times as many daily trains as Brightline.
DeleteCaltrain lacks a first class lounge with complimentary charcuterie and drinks. Brightline/Virgin is hopefully the future of rail. I'd love them to take over the Starlight.
DeleteWouldn't it be nice, Starlight could use something, anything. I think Brightline's objective is much different than Caltrains. Though both currently run a distance of ~70 miles, I think Brightline's goal is to cater to the tourist crowd from the distant Orlando airport with only a few "luxury crowd" stops in between, hence the wow factor. My impression is that Caltrains will be more of a high end commuter line than anything. Once they get HSR trains running up the corridor, well that's a different story
DeleteA reminder that Prop 1A allocated $10 billion. The Merced-Bakersfield link is probably going to cost $13 billion. The Prop 1A timings, routes, restrictions, etc are null and void once the Prop 1A money is all spent.
ReplyDeleteThe CURRENT estimate for Merced-Bakersfield is $20B.
Deletehttps://hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/legislative_affairs/Review_of_Capital_Costs_Est_2018_Assoc_with_Section_SF_Baker_Valley_To_Valley_Concept.pdf (Table 1-2 on Page 4)
DeleteThe on again off again request for release of Track and Systems Procurement is on again. The NTPs have greatly been expanded. This will by far be the largest contract to date. NTP 1 alone is $1.65 billion.
ReplyDeleteNTP 1: Madera to Poplar Avenue (anticipated summer 2020)
NTP 2: Poplar Avenue to Bakersfield (TBD)
NTP 3: Madera to Merced (TBD)
NTP 4: Gilroy to Central Valley Wye (TBD)
NTP 5: CP Lick to Gilroy (TBD), which would include upgrade and electrification of the existing Union Pacific Railroad
corridor
NTP 6: San Francisco to CP Lick (communications only) (TBD)
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2019/brdmtg_071619_Item2_Board_Memo_Track_and_Systems_July_Memo_20190708_wbox_for_CEO_sig.pdf
This tells me the authority is pretty confident about coming up with the money for Pacheco, ie, they included it in the bid.
DeleteAnd, given the Valley Link long range time estimates for San Jose, Pacheco appears to be the best route per Prop 1a.
See, Trump is for HSR after all. He pissed Newsom and the democrats off so bad they went ahead and came up with a financing plan for Pacheco.
Delete@Les: details, please! You forgot to post a link to the "financing plan for Pacheco."
DeleteOh Sorry, this is my speculation based on the way the next bid is laid out. I can't help but think they have a financial plan in mind given the confidence level of putting Gilroy track NTP in the next bid.
DeletePlease cut out the speculation and stay on topic, thank you. I will trim the discussion if this continues.
DeleteI apologize for that, I got a little carried away. Though I do think it is a great sign that, as shallow as it may be, Gilroy got included in a soon to be released electrification bid. Certainly a step up from being just print in a business plan.
Delete@Les: Do you understand the subtle difference between an RFQ and an RFP? Do you also understand that SJ to Gilroy (unlike SF to SJ) will actually take a novel approach consisting of laying track BEFORE electrification?
DeleteThey're using an RFP to shortlist for an RFQ. So. The fact they're including Gilroy is surprising given this stage of the game. Also throw in the fact that Beall, one of the primary architects of financing for Caltrains Electrification, was added to the board, tells me they are getting serious about financing.
Delete"will actually take a novel approach consisting of laying track BEFORE"
So, these sections are not all part of the same NTP.
but I get what your saying, ie, they're only putting out feelers to test the waters so to speak.
DeleteThe latest (verbal) update from the July board meeting stated that 122 foundations were set in June. This is a welcome uptick but it is still well below the productivity promised at the June board meeting, where numbers like 10 foundations per workday were bandied about and the impression was left that June would exceed 200. The acceleration will need to be stronger and more sustained before the curve inflects as it should. Some board members and the program manager are eager to declare victory on this issue, but we are NOT out of the woods.
ReplyDeleteSome Board members and the program manager naively believe that electrification consists of laying some wire and flicking a switch. What will happen the day they do flip the switch will be beyond fascinating...
DeleteNotable Variances
DeleteDuring this monthly progress reporting period, BBII is currently reporting an overall delay to substantial completion, including the intermediate milestone of Segment 4/Test Track completion. The delay is primarily due to the time it has taken to finalize the modifications required for the grade crossings, the effect that differing site conditions (DSCs) are having on OCS foundation installation and design completion of the Traction Power Substation (TPS) interconnect.
JPB continues to work with and is urging BBII to accelerate resolution of these issues.
Rather than tracking foundations, it might help to track "low hanging wires that interfere with electrification". There's a particularly low one at Oak Grove crossing in Menlo Park. It's likely a 3rd party utility which are known to wreak havoc with Caltrain schedules. IIRC, both South SF station and 25St Grade Separations delays were blamed on utility relocation issues.
DeleteIf you are a betting man, throwing some chips are "low hanging wires" sounds like a winning strategy.
Rode SF-Hillsdale and back today. So very impressed that I saw at least four different pole colors- basic galvanized, eucalyptus green, Millbrae Platform Three yellow, and basic black. Real attention to detail I've never witnessed anywhere else in the world. Truly World Class! ; ) They also looked seamless and transit-oriented.
ReplyDeleteLatest monthly shows significant slippage. Nineteen (19!!!) foundations for the entire month of October 2019. Delay to start of work in segment 1 is starting to compress testing period. The monthly rate to complete is now computed including all available schedule float, to 8/31/2020. By that new date, there are ten months left to finish 1885 foundations, which will take ~10x the monthly rate achieved in October. Good luck with that!
ReplyDeleteWe will be lucky if electrified service begins before 2023.
I have now added the pole construction progress to the chart alongside the foundation progress. Both are proceeding roughly at the same insufficient pace.
ReplyDeleteMore observations from the October 2019 monthly report:
1) Figure 2-5 (foundation production) shows a monthly target for the production rate required to meet the schedule. This monthly target has been stuck at 174 since they started publishing this metric, which is an error in whatever spreadsheet they are using to make this chart. The correctly calculated numbers for the last 5 months (foundations-to-go divided by months left) are: 174, 178, 191, 198, 221. In this latest report they moved the goalpost from 6/30/2020 to 8/31/2020, which bought them an extra two months but used up the schedule slack. By that metric, we're back to 1766 to go divided by 10 months = 177. Hopefully this error will be corrected in future reports.
2) The contractor has never reached 177 foundations/month. To date the record is November 2019, reportedly at 151. (Interestingly, even this record would further bump up the rate to complete from 177 to 179.) This figure of 179 would have to be sustained without interruption until completion. Given that on average, the more difficult foundations (where conflicts are found with existing utilities such as Caltrain's very own PTC fiber optic cables) are being delayed and left to be addressed later than the low hanging fruit, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain rate 179.
3) In the Appendix C schedule, OCS completion has just slipped by one month for three out of the four segments. OCS completion in segment 1 (San Francisco) is now on a secondary critical path, followed immediately by segment testing and system testing. The only reason this didn't become the primary critical path this month is that they compressed system testing by one month, holding the end of system testing at 12/31/21. Compression of testing periods is a red flag.
4) In the Appendix C schedule, the logic is constructed such that it is necessary to have 14 EMUs on hand by the end of "phased revenue testing" which means service is operated with a mix of diesels and EMUs. This is what makes the critical path go through EMU production. In reality, what is most important is the *beginning* of phased revenue testing, which is when you will be able to board an EMU for the first time. Right now this milestone is at 1/3/2022 and has zero slack (i.e. it is on the critical path).
5) The latest PMOC report (September 2019) reveals that the contractor's working schedule (so far rejected by Caltrain for various reasons) predicts substantial completion of electrification on 7/4/2022, six months later than carried in the Appendix C schedule or 12/31/2021.
I expect Caltrain to make increasingly desperate modifications to the program schedule, including further compression of the system test period, to maintain for as long as possible the appearance that electrification is not on the primary critical path. Let's see how long they can obfuscate before finally fessing up.
(A programming note: comments for old posts like this one are moderated. I get around to clearing the moderation queue every week or so. Please don't let that stop you from commenting.)
ReplyDeleteNotes from the November 2019 progress report
ReplyDelete1) foundation production has accelerated to a record monthly total of 151, but the goalpost for target monthly average has moved again from 8/31/2020 out to 12/31/2020 (four months). For the old target of 8/31/2020, the required monthly productivity would have been 179 foundations/month. With the newly relaxed milestone it is 124 foundations/month.
2) Appendix C schedule continues to show "tsunami buildup" where a wave of delayed tasks compresses against an artificially held RSD milestone. Most notably, electrification system testing (schedule line 41) has compressed from 222 days to 183 days (18% shorter) and phased revenue service (schedule line 83) has compressed from 90 days to 69 days (23% shorter).
3) The date when you will be able to board an EMU as a passenger for the first time (i.e. the beginning of phased revenue service) has slipped by a month to February 1st, 2022.
4) While the critical path is still stated to go through vehicle manufacturing, ten EMUs will have been delivered by the start of phased revenue service. Is ten enough to begin phased revenue service? If so, EMU manufacturing isn't your critical path.
As observed with last month's notes, Caltrain is making increasingly desperate schedule modifications to maintain the appearance that electrification is not on the primary critical path. With reality biting, it is doubtful they will be able to keep this up for more than a couple of months longer. Expect fireworks by March or April 2020 board meeting.
Speaking of fireworks, Happy New Year 2020 to transit nerds everywhere!
"Speaking of fireworks, Happy New Year 2020 to transit nerds everywhere!"
DeleteCheers, Clem!
May 2020 see your regional environment not quite yet totally conflagrate!
I've been spending most of this month paging through the CARB rail report, I particularly enjoy the bits about compressed air shunters and MOW vehicles and requiring cabooses for "hazmat" loads such as coal, oil and gas.
DeleteAnyway, there's about six MP36s so I guess that is where Caltrain starts to phase-in service. The BBs are already jam packed at rush hour and the EMUs would mean at least two more cars per train, platform length issues notwithstanding. If Caltrain has an option to add one more EMU car per trainset, this could also help.
In a crunch, they *could* just keep a diesel hooked up the whole time for contingency which would very conveniently cover them if construction slips. A great question here is how much of a power system does Caltrain actually need to get 10 EMUs running at a higher margin than present diesels; my gut feeling is one track SF to Mountain View. I'm also not an expert. An unorthodox (read: stupid) setup like this seems like something an operations director would consider in a vacuum where non-US systems aren't considered... the PRR certainly did all this at one point and SP probably studied it when they were looking at wiring Donner Pass.
Also happening around April: CHSRA will have to finalize their San Jose to Merced plans, and the various tax asks will have to be finalized.
BB in the news: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7829165/Construction-firm-Balfour-Beatty-sacked-MI-headquarters-refurbishment-lost-plans.html
ReplyDeleteNotes from the December 2019 PCEP progress report
ReplyDelete1) foundation production has faltered again. The goal posts stayed put this month, but the production rate required to complete by the end of this year has increased from 124/month to 131/month. This month: just 44.
2) appendix C schedule shows a large slip in SCADA (six months!) leaving just 1 month of slack before pre-revenue testing begins. This is shaping up to be yet another secondary critical path. Meanwhile, the completion of traction power construction in segments 1, 2 and 3 is in a month-for-month slip even after the large schedule slips recorded in last month's update. The tsunami buildup continues.
On the good news front: production photos posted on calmod.com appear to show that the door to the EMU cab compartment will have a railfan window affording a view into the cab and out the front of the train. Train nerds rejoice!
Soooo, electric service in 2022 maybe?
DeleteNotes from the January 2020 PCEP progress report
ReplyDelete1) foundation production is at ZERO for the month, with the rate required to complete by the end of the year having increased from 131/month to 143/month. The stated reason for zero foundations is because the contractor "did not have the rebar cages", of which enormous stacks can plainly be observed rusting away at Burlingame, Redwood Junction, and possibly other locations. Something big has come up and Caltrain isn't being transparent about it.
2) Schedule milestones are said not to have budged, despite the latest FTA PMOC report (December 2019) stating that the contractor's schedule shows a substantial completion date of January 2024. That's right, twenty-twenty-FOUR.
3) The flip-up seats that will be added to the bike cars are the subject of a change order that costs $1.96 million, to buy 4 flip-up seats x 2 bike cars x 19 trainsets = $12,900 per flip-up seat. No word on what material these are made of, but solid gold is not out of the question.
4) The signal modifications and grade crossing Constant Warning Time tasks that underlie the contractor's major schedule slips still do not appear on Caltrain's tracking schedule. It's harder to track the progress of a task when it isn't even on your schedule.
5) The appendix C schedule shows a wave breaking in EMU deliveries, with early deliveries delayed by ~3 months and later-produced trainsets being delivered before the earlier-produced trainsets. Must be those flip up seats and door plug retrofits.
6) I just caught this buried in appendix F risk table: there are two new risks that were added this month.
DeleteRisk ID 318: "Change of vehicle suppliers results in additional first article inspections at cost to JPB" with the effect of "PCEP incurs additional cost to validate supplier and product, including repeat First Article Inspections as needed"
I have to assume this means Stadler's suppliers, not Stadler itself supplying EMUs to Caltrain.
Risk ID 319: "Failure of BBI to order cages in advance results in delays to foundation installation" with the effect "Delays in installation of catenary system and additional cost for track protection and oversight"
From a systems engineering process perspective, it is quite odd to manage risks in this way. Risks are things that might happen in the future. What we see cropping up here are issues that have already been realized, and those don't really belong under a risk management process.
Clem,
ReplyDeleteHow might the statements in your para 1) be true? If there are stacks of rebar "rusting away", how can "the contractor did not have the rebar cages". Perhaps different contractors not paying each other for on-site prefab cages, making the cages 'unavailable'? Different sizes or shapes of cages, and none of the required dimensions on-hand for the planned installation? " These strain credulity beyond breaking point, up there with "The Contractor and the rebar-cage Elves"
Para 2); huh? Caltrain and the FTA cannot both be correct. Where's a Ralph Vartabedian when you need one? He could actually do something useful, like investigate and expose what's going on here. [[ tongue firmly in cheek ]]
Para 4) is ... well, there are risks, but we don't want to tell you about them. What is the _point_ of doing "risk management" like that? That's how you get outcomes like, um, CBOSS.
Para 5) - what could cause that? Do the ECO or plug-doors require car-body structural work in the high-door area? Inert-gas welding in partially-outfitted car bodies? The mind boggles. I guess it'd explain the costs in para (3) without resort to Sultan-of-Brunei seating.
To me the saddest thing is, if "business as usual", continues, the Jan 2024 date is _optimistic_. It assumes no more major screwups between now and then. Given Caltrain's track record [CBOSS, pun unplanned] how likely is that? How can one even tell, if Caltrain isn't bothering to put known risks into their PERT chart?
... Why even bother having a PERT chart, when they keep shaving time out of steps, to maintain an illusion that the schedule hasn't already slipped further than they'll admit. If Caltrain had an external program manager, and the program manager did that, in collusion with one of the contracting parties, would it constitute fraud? IANAL, but I guess it'd depend on how much money the contractor got, after an honest report would have led to contract penalties and/or cancellation. Would a prosector have to prove intent on the part of both construction contractor and PM? I have no idea.
Notes from the February 2020 PCEP progress report
ReplyDelete1) Foundation production for February is again ZERO, despite repeated affirmations throughout the report that there is a schedule to finish everything by the end of this year. The required average production rate to reach this goal is 157/month (excluding foundations that are part of SSF and 25th Ave projects); this is higher than the all-time record of 151 set in November 2019. The likelihood of missing the end-of-year target is darn near one hundred percent.
2) The Appendix C schedule shows continuing month-for-month slips in the OCS and traction power tasks, with the selective exception of the segment 1 OCS task-- which if delayed would push the BBII work onto the critical path of the project. To avoid this, the task duration was shortened, using a well-known scheduling trick.
3) delivery of trainsets 2 and 3 is delayed nine months and six months, respectively. That sure is a long time to retrofit flip-up seats. Is there something else we aren't being told?
Due to quarantine, Caltrain has a 95% drop in ticket sales. Now is the perfect opportunity to catch up on construction by closing the line to allow round-the-clock work. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
DeleteANY and all failures and cutbacks have a very simple excuse. CORONA VIRUS. It's even better than "9/11 American Heroes shut up pay up" because it's even more one-size-fits-all.
DeleteTo think that Caltrain and its Trump-level-qualified CEO might have had to have to pull out the hoary old "a particularly wet winter delayed construction and increased costs -- I'M MELTING!" excuse that's been used for pretty much every regional public civil works project fiasco over the last few decades. Keep that one dry and ready in the strategic reserve!
My guess: they'll blame PG&E for having wires too low and for going slow on utility relocation work. PG&E will blame the shelter-in-place order, and all of this will be quietly swept under the rug as a fresh round of Trump Bucks/Federal Stimulus washes in. Most people won't notice as EMU testing was going to go into 2022 regardless.
DeleteAlso, you've probably already seen this but something regarding new drainage installs in SF's tunnels (see pp 115). I can't think of anything else that could cause a major hangup.
http://www.smcta.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/TA/Board+of+Directors/Agendas/2020/2020-03-05+TA+BOD+Agenda+Packet.pdf
And construction workers can't catch the virus so it should be okay for them to do non essential work.
Delete@aarond: you "can't think of anything else that could cause a major hangup"? Seriously?
DeleteHave a look at Appendix F (Listing of PCEP Risks and Effects in Order of Severity) on p. 89 of the latest monthly status report.
Admin note: this post is old, so comments are automatically routed to moderation queue. I come around every now and then to publish them.
DeleteSee #067, #250, #254, #271, #274, and #282. All of those factors could come together inside the tunnels and create a big, not-easily-fixable and expensive rebuild. In terms of delay, the tunnels are probably the single biggest point of failure because fixing them would require the most staging, men and materials with the largest impact on rail operations. Enough where Caltrain was, at a baseline, completely suspending SF weekend service.
DeleteDrainage isn't cheap and, as Clem has said many times before, neither is concrete required for that sort of installation. Doesn't help that the city government doesn't have their head in the project at all, and would want other things out of Caltrain in exchange inconveniencing residents with utility work above and around the tunnels. It's also where there is the least amount of vision towards the future... right now Caltrain is expected to fully wire 4th&King just to tear it down when the DTX is built and facilities moved south into Bayshore. In terms of money, this is where the biggest losses were always going to be and makes savings in other areas less important simply because SF doesn't have a serious gameplan for the DTX beyond "doing" it.
By comparison Redwood City, Newark, Samtrans, ACT, and UP all seem to have a clue vis-a-vis East Palo Alto. Already construction crews have rebuilt the switch under Woodside Rd and full sized work trains proceed as far as the fire station. Even though there is no official plan formally adopted for the area yet, things are being cleaned up with the expectation of a plan. As part of that problems with bridges, culverts, power lines, pipes, signals etc are discovered early and planned for whereas contractors are probably going into those tunnels largely sight unseen both figuratively and literally. I'm watching the Costco substation's construction closely for this reason, when poles are put up through RWC their specific placement (including modifications, betterments, extras added by the contractor) will be very telling.
Notes from the March 2020 PCEP progress report
ReplyDeleteFoundation installation continues to fall hopelessly behind. The average total for the entire first quarter of 2020 was eight foundations per month (that's right, you can count them on two hands!) and if that rate is sustained, all foundations should be complete by the year 2036. Of course, the report promises a significant acceleration, but the stated goal of completing another 1544 foundations within nine months to support the end-of-year foundation completion milestone has gone from ridiculous to downright laughable. The board and public should be insulted by such a dishonest status report, insisting that everything is on schedule. It's okay to be late, but it's not okay to be so nakedly dishonest about it.
Could it be CAHSR is siphoning off workers? I noticed CAHSR man hours has been at its highest point to date and there was already a shortage of workers.
DeleteHSR is still pushing dirt around and building grade separations more than 125 miles away. Different skillsets, so I doubt it. I'm still thinking there's something wrong with the grade of steel in the rebar in the pole foundations, but that is 100% a guess on my part.
DeleteNotes from the April 2020 PCEP progress report
ReplyDeleteFoundation installation recovered a bit, and an explicit (if likely unachievable) plan was published for how many foundations would have to be completed in each of the remaining months of 2020 in order to finish within the year.
Shipping the first train to Colorado (for high-speed testing) continues to be delayed. This is an important "schedule hold point" where contingency budgets are re-evaluated, and we are now 14 months into a 19-month gap that has opened in the sequence of schedule hold points.
Speaking of contingency, $32 million of it was used this month alone, of which $25 million was shoveled over to PG&E for interconnection work. Why was the contingency budget not replenished by the amount not paid to the party formerly on the hook to perform the work?
New risks: #321 if PG&E makes trouble about the single-phase loading of their substations, then the system cannot be energized. #322 if substations aren't completed on time to get powered up, then testing will be delayed. And then the kicker: #323 "FRA concerns require redesign".... don't leave us hanging, be specific!
Finally, it's the beginning of June and none of the FTA PMOC reports for 2020 have yet showed up. Who is slow-walking these important oversight documents, the FTA or Caltrain?
Any idea if the test track featured in this tweet is in Pueblo, Colorado, or still in Utah?
Deletehttps://twitter.com/caltrain/status/1266044088937099264?s=21
That's in Salt Lake on the factory grounds. The move to Pueblo isn't until October.
Delete"Speaking of contingency, $32 million of it was used this month alone, of which $25 million was shoveled over to PG&E for interconnection work. Why was the contingency budget not replenished by the amount not paid to the party formerly on the hook to perform the work?"
DeleteAre you sure that the party formerly on the hook was not, in fact, paid?
The Feds has been messing with most rail projects in California by simply ignoring them. Remember the start of this one? How about recent CAHSR or Virgin Trains? I'll put good money on FTA. All they need to do is not return calls or email and they can stall a project for many months and then come back and ask "why the delay?".
Delete"if PG&E makes trouble about the single-phase loading of their substations, ..."
ReplyDeleteHow in God's name can this still be a risk? How many years has it been since Caltrain contracted with PG&E for supply to the new traction substations, and work to support electrification? How many years does it take for PG&E to realize that the load per OCS phase segment is single-phase?
Do Caltrain's "special and unique" circumstances include a special version of Faraday's laws, or a special complex plane? Whose side is the incompetence on: Caltrain's, or PG&E?
And please, none of Richard's casual racism against English-speaking people. Other English-speaking countries get this right as a matter of course. Prime examples I'm familiar with: New Zealand's electrification of the NIMT, and (generations later) electrification of the Auckland suburban network.
Notes from the May 2020 PCEP progress report
ReplyDelete"Farce Majeure"
Foundation production, despite the insistent promises of past months, has crashed back to the dismal level of 44/month. Undeterred, project managers project ever higher and unachievable future rates (nearly 300 foundations are planned for November) in order to finish within the current calendar year.
For the EMUs, a new change order was approved to defer the installation of interior wheelchair lifts, the final nail in the coffin of the high/low boarding solution. Platform interface-wise, the EMUs will now be configured exactly the same way as the existing Bombardier cars. While recent photos from Salt Lake City show the upper doors installed, these will soon be removed and replaced by plug panels.
In a bit of good news, the regulatory compliance documentation for EMU crashworthiness has been approved by FRA, which is no small feat. One hopes sufficient spares of fiberglass front cladding have been ordered to withstand the usual grade crossing carnage.
The pandemic has delayed testing of the first trainset in Salt Lake City, such that its trip to Pueblo, Colorado for dynamic testing is delayed to November and slipping day for day.
The milestone schedule has slipped again, with electrification substantial completion delayed to 2/26/2022, a slip of 8 months since late 2018. Revenue service has slipped 2.5 months to late July 2022, all but eliminating the margin against FTA's deadline of August 2022. The pandemic will surely be invoked to delay the deadline.
Stadler is still claimed to be on the critical path, now with a convenient day-for-day pandemic slip that provides a welcome fig leaf to the Balfour Beatty electrification work.
The Appendix C schedule finally shows signal construction work. Notably, this work has pushed out the testing of segments 1, 2 and 3 by up to 8 months, with compressed testing tasks taking place at the end of 2021. The testing of the entire electrification system has been compressed from ~6 months to less than 3 months. Pre-revenue testing has been further curtailed to six weeks. There is no discussion or justification of this extremely sporty schedule compression, other than it maintains the illusion that the critical path runs through Stadler.
In the risk list, three new risks have appeared to justify what is surely the consequence of Buy America procurement: quality issues, failed factory tests, and poor integration and control of new U.S. suppliers. These seem to be clear and present issues, rather than risks.
Meanwhile, in a functioning democracy, ith a functioning public sector, with functioning public servants, functional contracting, and a functional capitalist economy:
DeleteMunich – Lindau electrification nearing completion
GERMAN infrastructure manager DB Networks has announced that electrification of the Munich – Lindau line via Memmingen will be completed by December 2020, with much of the 155km route operational by July 1.
The route includes 107km of single track between Buchloe and Hergatz which has been reconstructed to allow operation at 160km/h for tilting trains, from a maximum of 80km/h previously. DB Energy has also built a 100km long 110kV electricity supply line due to the lack of existing electrified railways in the region.
Swiss Federal Railways (SBB) will operate RABe 503 Pendolino tilting EMUs on the line for its Munich and Zürich international service from December. Journey times for the service are expected to be reduced by an hour to 3h 30min.
...
Clem,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the Caltrain staff are lying about foundation schedules? (And I hope they are reading this.) What's their motivation to pretend that the critical path goes through Stadler?
why take out doors that are already installed? FRA regulation?
If I recall correctly, at least one of the British HST power cars was withdrawn from service because the moulds for the fibreglass front cladding had been destroyed. I hope the maintenance contract includes replacement shells for the lifetime of the vehicles.